The Nanotech BC Blog: Coming Soon to a Fruit Fly Larvae Near You

The intersection of nanotechnology and biology are attracting a lot of interest for many good reasons. On the one hand nanotech seems to promise new ways of curing disease and promoting health. On the other, nobody seems very sure of the extent that nanoparticles or nanotubes are harmful.

Now the brave fruit fly looks like it's about to find out:

Nanotubes Imaged In Fruit Fly Larvae

Using near-infrared fluorescence imaging, scientists at Rice University have managed to sneak a peek at single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) inside the bodies of living fruit fly larvae (Nano Lett. 2007, 7, 2650). It's the first time anyone has observed carbon nanotubes inside a living creature, according to principal investigators Kathleen M. Beckingham and R. Bruce Weisman, who think the technique could be useful for diagnosing diseases. The Rice team first fed Drosophila melanogaster larvae a steady diet of water-solubilized SWNTs. The researchers then used a near-infrared microscope and special camera to image SWNTs without harming the larvae. Neither the adult flies' viability nor their growth was reduced by ingesting the tubes. They also found that a small fraction—approximately 10^-8—of the ingested nanotubes were incorporated into the flies' organs, which suggests that SWNTs may have a negligible physiological impact on the insects.

Personally, I'm not planning on ordering a nanotube cocktail any time too soon no mater how much the flies liked it -- but the lack of damage to the larvae seems like a hopeful sign. Nanoparticles are part of the environment every time you burn a candle, but there is a strong possibility that the type and amount of nanomaterials we will all be exposed to will change.

The Nanotech BC Blog: The FDA Speaks

The USA Food and Drug Administration has come to the conclusion that they have sufficient capability to test and regulate products containing nanoparticles. Products will not need special labeling to indicate the presence of nanoparticles -- a decision that will no doubt put a number of companies at ease. More details here and here.

Is this a good thing? It's hard to say, because the decision seems to be being made based on a lack of information -- the FDA simply doesn't know enough about nanoparticles to say they are a danger. This, of course, doesn't necessarily mean some of them aren't.

It really comes down to deciding just how cautious we want to be about nanotechnology. This is a tough call to make, and I sincerely hope that the FDA knows enough about the many different properties of the many different kinds of nanoparticles to make it.

The Nanotech BC Blog: Safety, Nano-Particles and Fuel Cells

On Tuesday I had the opportunity to participate in a day of meetings and discussion about nanotechnology and safety at the National Research Council, Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation. Nanowerk has a great article on the major challenges to realizing the potential of hydrogen fuel cells and how nanotech fits in to making that happen.

The researchers at the CFCI need to deal with nano-particles as part of their work. Tuesday was an attempt to get a handle on how to evaluate and respond to health risks caused by nano-particles.

The problem is a lack of knowledge. With conventional materials we know how much a person can be exposed to safely. When we use those same materials at the nano-scale however, our information starts to fall apart. Most of these nano-materials are new even if their macro-scale counterparts are not, and are being developed much faster than toxicologists can test them.

Nobody can guarantee safety, especially at this point. The key, and I heard this reiterated many times, is to be proactive. Traditionally, health and safety have been reactive and investigatory, i.e. it's only after someone gets sick or dies that we try to find out why and stop it from happening again. The specter of asbestos looms large.

That kind of approach isn't good enough. Researchers and health and safety experts are working hard to intelligently calculate risks and develop ways to protect people well before the damage is done. The price for this kind of forethought is dealing with a lot of unknowns, but step by step we're getting it figured out, and in the process making nanotechnology safer.

The Nanotech BC Blog: Use Nanotech Instead

Nanotech gets its incredible potential from the unusual properties that materials sometimes exhibit at the nano-scale. That potential is a double-edged sword however -- we don't know very much about the toxicity of most nano-particles or how they interact with natural environments. This should, and is being studied.

At the same time nanotechnology promises new technologies that have the potential to address some of our most serious environmental problems. Nanowerk brings up a further use for nanotechnology -- to substitute for dangerous chemicals that are in use now.

The key to nanotechnology is that it allows us, to an extent, to rationally design our materials. This isn't a simple process but it holds the promise of allowing us to create new substances that can meet our needs without the often very serious drawbacks of conventional chemicals.

The Nanotech BC Blog: Worm's Eye View

Watching new advances in nanotechnology come rolling in everyday is exciting -- but with all the single-molecule sensors and nano-wagon wheels, it's easy to loose sight of what "nanotechnology" means to the average consumer.

For anybody interested in a worm's eye view of nanotechnology, take a few minutes to go through the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. It's a consumer product inventory focused on nanotechnology.

Browsing the inventory is an educational experience, if only for the number of dubious claims you're likely to encounter. For a lot of products "nano" seems like magic, imparting remarkable qualities by virtue of association alone (Galaxia Nano Technology Limited Nano Cup Group Aerobics Living Supply Box.) There are also a lot of cases where limited nanotechnology, in the form of nano-particles like nano-silver is being used, even though there isn't yet a real sense of the long term health or safety consequences of some of these applications.

This is just a roundabout way of saying that nanotechnology is new and complicated. It takes time and patience to tell the snake-oil from the real medicine. Consumer groups play an important role in this process. It's also important for people to understand how really big (ironically enough) the word "nano" is -- encompassing a huge range of sciences, technologies and even particle types. Christine Peterson does a great job in today's Nanodot post of getting across how important it is for everybody, particularly consumers to recognize the variety within the nano lable.

The Nanotech BC Blog: Talking about Nanotech

Richard Jones at Soft Machines has been writing lately about new and promising developments in the British nanotechnology community. His post on Friday was particularly interesting, focusing not on the science of nanotechnology, but on the challenges we face in deciding how, when or if to apply it. It appears that the technical challenges of nanotech might be the easy part. In reference to All Talk? Nanotechnology and public engagement:

On the one hand, there was the view that Science itself provides clear answers to policy questions; for example, given the correct information the need for GM food to feed the world’s population and nuclear energy to power it would become obvious. As for policy, we have a representative democracy to ensure that the people’s views are represented; it is politicians, not opinion polls, who ought to decide these issues, and public engagement is really just a question of the print and broadcast media informing people. On the other hand, we heard that the direct action and controversy-stoking of the social movements are the only way that opposing views can properly be heard, and that irrationality is a legitimate tool in the face of the entrenched hegemony of technoscience.

Perhaps it's natural that such potentially revolutionary technologies like nanotech end up dividing people into almost cartoonishly stark camps -- natural but depressing. My own sense is that there is a general inability in the scientific community to communicate the possibilities of nanotechnology in terms that make sense to regular people. That leads to misunderstandings and frustration on both sides and makes compromise very difficult.

Jones links to an interesting post by policy maker David Bott who also attended the same meeting as Jones and proposes the only real way out of the communication impasse that cutting-edge science often finds itself in:

If you are a scientist, I think there is real value in taking the time to explain what you do, and why you do it, to those who are not scientists, but only if you listen to what they say in return.

The Nanotech BC Blog: No Progress Without an Informed Public

Nanodot links to a very interesting paper: Nanotechnology Policy: An Analysis of Transnational Governance Issues Facing the United States and China. One of the most significant issues raised was about the general level of understanding of nanotechnology:

...publics throughout the world remain largely in the dark about nanotechnology. A major study, funded by the NSF and conducted in 2004 by Michael Cobb and Jane Macoubrie at North Carolina State University (NCSU), found that 80 percent to 85 percent of the American public has heard “little” or “nothing” about nanotechnology.47 Similarly, a nationally representative, August 2006 poll of over 1,000 adults, commissioned by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, found similar results, with about 70 percent of the public reporting that they have heard little to nothing at all about nanotechnology. These findings are consistent with similar polls that have been commissioned in Europe and Canada, and it is possible that these trends associated with low levels of public of understanding of nanotechnology would also occur in China as well.

The paper goes on to point out that a lack of understanding of what nanotechnology actually is can lead quickly to a consumer backlash -- a backlash that nanotechnology can't afford as it's making it's first tentative steps into commercialization.

How do we avoid this?

... coordinated nanotechnology education and engagement programs will be needed, supported by both government and industry. These efforts will have to be structured to reach a wide range of consumers, many of which may have little to no scientific or technical training. Establishing such a widespread public engagement campaign will require the use of both traditional media outlets—such as print, radio, television, and film—alongside more non-traditional media outlets—such as the Internet, weblogs, games, and podcasts—to capture the attention of a diverse range of individuals in various age, gender, and socioeconomic categories.

Which is very much the mandate of Nanotech BC -- to build an inclusive nanotechnology community that addresses the needs of researchers, businesses and consumers. We have a collection of papers about a wide range of nanotechnology topics and hold events throughout the year. Stay tuned for more opportunities to get involved with one of the technologies that will shape our future.

The Nanotech BC Blog: The Customer is Always Right

Over the next few years, whether we know it or not, we will begin using and living with products that depend on the sometimes uncanny properties that can come from nanotech. On the verge of any change that promises to saturate our lives so completely, there's an obligation to ask a simple question: What can go wrong?

Part of the mandate of Nanotech BC is to encourage discussion about NE3LS -- Nanotechnology, Environment, Ethics, Economics, Legal and Safety issues. We need to find ways to enjoy the rewards of nanotechnology without making mistakes that harm health or the environment.

As nanotechnology moves into the marketplace, the roll of watchdog will increasingly be taken up by business and consumer groups. Consumer Report is already doing that, looking at nanoparticles in sunscreen. Nanowerk contributes to the analysis, looking at how or if nanoparticles might be a danger.

Criticism and analysis is a sign of success. The fact that consumer publications are aware of nanotechnology speaks to the growing acceptance of nanotech. Thorough study of any new material is essential, but laboratory testing is only one part of the equation -- consumers need to be informed. Everybody has a stake in the development of safe nanotech, and everybody should have a voice.